Skip to main content

About your Search

20130113
20130121
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 93 (some duplicates have been removed)
pre-payment and [kphr-ebgs/] agreement, as well as sfpuc tax certificate, very similar to the review when you review our bond approvals for when the sfpuc is an issuer. in this case the issuer would be the wholesale customers not directly the sfpuc. >> and todd, just formality benefit of the public can you quickly distinguish who would be our wholesale customers versus retail? >> our whorl sale customers are primarily san mateo, santa clara and alameda counties. they are 26 agencies that provide water to aapproximately 1.5 million people outside of san francisco. inside of san francisco, are our retail customers and our retail customers will also benefit from this, because they will see lower bills than they would have otherwise seen with the capital repayment. the commission approved this back in december. it provides for rate-payer relief in the flare term, specifically in the next 8-10 years for our retail consumers. a total of $362 million and it is permitted under the con trouting agreement that was signed by city and customers in 2009. this slide is the most important for our
plan. and we're required to use them for eligible expenses under what the irs requires tax exempt bond financing. in addition to that we would use them for some reserves and those reserves basically allow us to have lower rate increases in future years. that is how they flow through the model. the prepavement collection agreement allows foyer surge charge and what will happen the water rate for wholesale customers will go down, but they will levy a surcharge on themselves and they will provide that information to us and we'll be a billing and collection agent. the approval would be before you, consideration and finance today. the board next week, if you concur, and then they would like to go to market in january, january 31st and close at the end of february. thank you for your consideration. we very grateful for the budget analyst's report and their thorough review and we agree with their recommendation as well. >> thank you. i had one question. there was a section that budget analyst report highlighted which basically said that the requirement or part of the agreement also inde
of five positions in the office of treasurer and tax collector for the implementation of proposition e and the gross receipts tax. >> would you call item no. 8 as w. item no. 8, ordinance appropriating $1,566,145 from the general fund reserves so to the san francisco department of treasurer/tax collector for gross receipts tax implementation planing for fy2012-2013. >> these two item goes hand in hand. so we have, i believe greg cotto from the treasurer/tax collector to present on these two items. >> good afternoon, supervisors. thank you very much for taking up these items. and i did want to, before i get into this presentation, thank the mayor and particularly the mayor's budget office and controller and his economic team, as well as the city attorney's office. president chiu, supervisor farrell and supervisor avalos. i would like to give a brief overviewhoun it changes things fort taxpayer and how the office of treasurer/tax collector interacted with the public. the ordinance was passed on november 6th. and it does not apply to the 2013 or prior tax years. and just for your inf
property tax reduction would provide the most benefit to property owners who have owned their properties since 1999. some of the residents and owners who have owned their building for 20 or 30 years, they already pay low property tax so the bills act calculations would not help them. it would not reduce their property taxes anymore. if you just purchase property and it's a contributor to the district you would have high property taxes. the only people who can apply for the mills act property tax reductions are owners of properties of individual landmarks or owners of properties contributors to landmark districts as well as registered landmark districts. so designation of the duboce park landmark district would enable property owners to apply for the mills acted. it's not a dollar for dollar reduction. the mills act is a maintenance restoration or rehabilitation plan. it's a contract that the city enters into with the property owners, department reviews it, the city tax assessor reviews it and ensures the calculations are correct but it's not a dollar per dollar duction. if you were a new
equipment to answer legislation on this and finances district proceeds are basically tax increpts that is baseline established and growth above that baseline of what pedestrian interest tax and so it's similar to increment financing and these are at the growth and tax of project's cause that otherwise go to the taxing entities pribblely the generally fund and we hold those proceeds to repay the investment and infrastructure. so no, to the proposed policy. there has been a long tradition both in the charter and in the burton act that the harbor fund is a self supporting the port is a self supporting enterprise and the city obviously, we pay for that was we purchase from the city and we want to maintain a balance so that the 50 city is not subsidizing the hash fund for our activities and the general services that we require from the city and so we have under taken a nexxus analysis in 2004 and eight that looks at the balance of payment and the next is the methodology that ports with long term leases where the tenants pay tax they pay ampleel tax to be provided these services lik
dependent upon inviting thousands more people here to enjoy our resources here in the city, to tax us a little bit on it, but this is what we do >> hello and welcome to me your district supervisor. we're here with supervisors got scott wiener. he started his first term this january. we are going to get to know him and talk about the issues facing the city. welcome. thank you for joining us today. tell us about your background, where you grew up, went to school, and what kind of jobs to have had. >> i grew up in the philadelphia area, in new jersey. i went to school up and down the east coast. i went to undergrad at duke university. i went to law school at harvard. after clerking for a judge, i came out here in 1997. i have been here for the last 14 years. i have always lived in the castro. i am an attorney. i started out in private practice. i settle private law firm during complex commercial litigation. in 2002, and moved over to the sentences the city attorney's office where i worked on the trial team doing trials for the city, handling my own cases, and supervising a team of attorn
feasiblability for this probability indicates a 9 million-dollar tax benefit to the city after the cost of the city services and this is after netting out the property tax increment that we would capture through the i f b and so this is really coming from gross receipts tax and sales tax and other tacks that would continue to flow to the general fund. and elane mentioned the idea of excess tax increments and after the project needs are paid there is up to one $.6 billion paid in excess taxes generated from this site. pier 70 is a bit more complicated in that it's divided into a number of districts and a master plan starting in 2,007 and the commission chose to let out pourings of this site in sort-of a segmented manner and the water personal property site is the site under contract for a city development or in development is managing the rehabilitation of the historic buildings along 20th street, we have our ship repair under least and you have heard david talk about cran copark. four city's this the process of doing due diligence for the property right now and they are concerned that
the money from the state or the federal, it is the taxpayers who pay the taxes and we need to have some accountability and some transparency. i am not saying that this contractor is going to do his job i hope he does his job quarterly or twice a year or for the duration of this contract we get some reports. so that we can read and see what is happening. thank you very much. >> is there any other member in of the public that would like to make comments? seeing none public comment is close. (gavel) this is an action item. >> mr. chair? >> i know there is question about work between the mta and the transportation authority. can you talk about those issues and how they were resolved? >> both agencies have responsibility especially mta which has legislation for originating parking in public policy of the transportation authority addresses transportation strategies particularly because half of the -- in the city is regional. in fact mtc is providing local match for the study. the two agencies have come together to propose jointly managing the study. will come back to this committee t
to your attention last fall san francisco voters passed a tax-change measure. and the mayoral spokesperson in a later article indicated there likely could be more money from this new local tax measure that replaced an outdated one. to the extent that the office of disability, department of aging and adult services and mod can monitor the income from this new tax, i'm going to suggest that some of that extra money could be devoted to restoring some level of the cutbacks already made locally. but statewide is the larger issue. that is where the major changes have come. so i also wanted to alert you to a program called "a california budget for all of us." it's convening groups include well-known groups like the western center on law and poverty, health access, the california partnership, and the california immigrant policy center. the mantra is "restore, rebuild and reinvest." so this advocacy will be taken up by various groups including the california alliance of retired americans. there are four polices that are coming from this california budget for all of us. four polices for the coming
bond documents, a tax certificate, as well as a surcharge fund ordinance and most important that it provides rate-payer relief and savings. with that in mind i would like to thank the sponsors, the mayor's office, as well as supervisor chu. before you is a wholesale customer repayment, who purchase about two-thirds of all the water next hetchy system have the opportunity under their contract arrangement with the city to be able to pre-pay capital costs repayment. and these are old capital costs that were incurred previously. monday we sold our own sewer bonds of $19 2 million worth, our wholesale customers as well are able to issue bonds and now experience refunding savings. the approval would include pre-payment and [kphr-ebgs/] agreement, as well as sfpuc tax certificate, very similar to the review when you review our bond approvals for when the sfpuc is an issuer. in this case the issuer would be the wholesale customers not directly the sfpuc. >> and todd, just formality benefit of the public can you quickly distinguish who would be our wholesale customers versus retail
reviewed rather than just the structure within the treasurer/tax collector? it could very well be this is right classification. i just want to understand that process. >> supervisor, as you know, all of the city's classifications are reviewed by dhr and i know dhr did work with the treasurer's office to identify the appropriate classifications. the09 53 position, just the salary and range for that position is $125,000 to $159,000 on an annual basis. i think the information reflected in the budget analyst's report is the fully-loaded costs meaning the fringe benefits and the salaries as well. the deputy director 3 the 0 53 as i understand is the appropriate deputy director level for the treasurer's office based on their organizational structure, which uses the 0953 classification. >> if i just take a look at the high-end of that classification, at $159,000, and i'm multiply it .42, i still only get $226,000, so i just wanted to understand what the differential was. why don't we go to the budget analyst's report. >> madame chair and supervisor avalos, yes, that number in our
used to be a line item in the budget, but you recall a couple of years ago there was a gas tax swap, a complicated maneuver to ensure that transportation funds continued to flow. the result is that the state transit assistance is now based on the details sales tax receipts. that is a fluctuating amount of money and therefore we only rely on the projections over the course of the year. so far it looks pretty good. the other big news is that the state is looking pretty good. troop prop 30 passed, significant dollars in projected revenue. so i think we find ourselves in a cautiously optimistic time. we'll be following that as the year unfolds. we participate in that process through various trade associations and our meeting, in fact, next week with the commit staff working on the bill to have california's law conform for the federal law. cap and trade another very large statewide issue. san francisco as a city family is engaging on that through our advocacy, our lobbyists, as well as the league of cities, california state association of counties and others who have an interest in maki
of the issue is a discussion or lack thereof between the assessor's office and the tax collector's office. i remember years ago trying to pay my property taxes and being told i am so sorry you can't do that yet. i found it odd that they do not want my money. the process then was that they had not figured out the escape assessment; they were still working on numbers from years earlier. they knew those based on my purchase price but they were not ready to collect the money for four more years. i knew they would be collecting at some point so i set it aside. i can appreciate that so many people don't. if i were asked, i would be happy to lend a hand and solve these problems. >> it is not the role of the assessment board to facilitate a process between our citizens and our homeowners or property owners but for me it is something that as citizens of san francisco, help push to make it easier for people to understand and easier to get a rebate. >> when i had my appeal i talk with five or six people who did not understand the comp period, were certain dates. they had come to the wrong dates. i hel
a report on this item a group allocation memo of prop k sales tax funds as well as prop aa the vehicle registration funds. >> i will present the first item and courtney will present the last three items. this item begins on page 19 of your packet. we have five prop k requests and prop aa request is link to one of the prop k requests. we adopted a five-year plan. this project are in compliance with the five-year plan except with the -- funding. we have to find funding for the conceptual engineering part for that. prop aa program we adopted strategic planning for those funds. expected leveraging, page 25 and 28 go through brief descriptions of the requests in our recommendations. the first two requests are part for the one ba area grant. we are not entering the project development phase, increasing project readiness. all the project are addressing cost issues, engineering issues, immediate support, environmental issues to make sure we have the strongest project to go through the federal funding cycle. we are the january to april time frame. in february, cac march plans and programs
of february for the tax collect and her we are planing to go right after within a couple of weeks after the tax collecters. the next project was the refresh fof the computers for the staff. swre been having a three year replacement cycle, where we have deployed computers, every year, we have got about 50 to 100 computers that we deploy. so it is the oldest computer that will would be like four years at the most. so to have been up to date we have purchased the latest of 50 commuters over the counter staff on the fifth floor and they will be getting the new pcs this month and we have plans ongoing every year. we have about 100 in the budget to plan. >> commissioner walker? >> are we testing hand held devices at this point? >> that is the next... >> we did... we started this a year ago and we did purchase a few hand held devices upon the recommendations from our ininstruction staff as well as our emergency management staff. we do want to use those for the ininstruction as well as in an emergency if we need to. we purchased a few and deployed them and we got the feedback. and they were mot
connection. and, in fact, that they would -- because they are not required to pay a state tax on the service connections, they would decrease the cost of our service connection by the cost of that tax, which is rough life $650,000. and their service connection would be subject to the same refunds as the pg&e service connection. so that we're at a very equitable basis, but realizing about a $650,000 initial savings on cost of service. it's worth noting also that the puc has additional energy-efficiency rebates that they have indicated that the transit center might be eligible for above and beyond those offered by pg&e. and that puc primarily, because they are primary hetchy and solar power that they are 100% greenhouse gas-free service to the tjpa. so in summary, the sfpuc is offering us an ongoing service rate that would be 10% lower than pg&e's. an initial cost of connection that is again roughly $650,000 less than pg&e's. and has a comparable level of reliability of service. and so the recommendation is that the board authorize staff to negotiate an agreement with puc. >> thank you. act
for these new economic changes. we have given economic tax breaks for the new companies starting up in the city; we have changed our business taxes well. a lot of these changes are changes that affect big business in san francisco but we need to do more to make sure that we support every day businesses. we are seeing higher income people; (indiscernible) i really believe that san francisco needs to do something deliberate, specific that measures how people on the bottom rung are getting by in a better way. it's not enough that we just serve the wealthy interest; we make sure that as we do that that we support the people that i getting by not as much of the city. i was at dc about two months ago, i went to a lot of different monuments, really beautiful statues, beautiful buildings, the lincoln memorial, actually passed the lincoln memorial onto the franklin delano roosevelt memorial. something struck me there, quote from fdr: the test about progress is not whether we add more to those who have enough but whether we provided enough to those who do not have enough. we want to make s
a look at the results of the survey. i have for you as a copy, in your binder, the tax and treasurer's office has modified their business registration form. it's now a one-page form and it includes the sb1186, sb 1186 requires that each local municipality collect a dollar per business registration or license to go towards inspection or inspectors, mostly with the municipality department of department of building inspection and also for ongoing outreach education, helping businesses in compliance with their construction-related accessibility improvements. of the dollar, $0.70 is to stay in the local municipality. $0.30 goes to the state. 5% of that $0.70 goes to administering and processing of collecting the dollar and the rest of the 65% comes back to working on inspectors and helping get inspectors become inspectors with the department of building inspection and our outreach education ongoing and helping businesses comply with the construction-related accessibility requirements. so dbi and i have started a conversation just about how we're going to be constructing working with the
to the people of california and measure to approve the voters wrestle for voter transportation special taxes from two thirds to 55 percent. sca 9 is a little bit of a variance on that. it too would seek to reduce the voters threshold from two thirds to 55 percent. for economic development projects. those are not well defined in the bill yet. there is a lot of work to be done on this measure so we recommended watch. however for the two local sales tax measure bills we recommended support position. i can take questions here. i have a quick budget overview. >> what you get that update in that we will take questions. >> last week the governor release figures for the 2013-14 budget. legislative analyst said it's a reasonable budget. for the first time in recent memory you have a balanced budget in effect with a good chance of remaining in balance. the risk are mostly what might happen from the federal government and cost impact that might flow to the state in a couple of minor risks. they stamped it "prudent. " first time i've seen that in 15 years. in the world transportation one of th
at the end of the day we're accountable to the tax payers and the rate payers of city and county of san francisco. >> thank you president torres. just a clarification on the action item before us if there is one or for the later meet something. >> the sfpuc commission agenda provides for them to discuss and take action, so our understanding is that the commission secretary would call the roll for the sfpuc so that they could vote on this agenda item for lafco it was just a discussion item. >> thank you. commissioner vietor. >> yes and i appreciate all the public comments that have been made and the comments too from this body and all of the work that the puc has done. i have been on the public utilities commission for four years plus and i know this cleanpower sf issue -- i think it's been eight years, nine years in the coming, and when i came on there was really this sort of sense that the puc wasn't stepping up, that the city didn't care that we weren't moving quickly enough and he we are at this opportunity to really move things forward. i think it's really remarkable and i think
on with caltrans revenue. your specific question, caltrans did a poll of sales tax in that area and so now they are rethinking what they are going to be doing. they did do a poll of possible sales tax . >> that is where it comes state and federal funding. so they are looking for some kind of local thing and that would be very difficult in the three counties, because the three counties look at it very differently. thanks. anybody else? anything? thank you very much. >> mr. chairman, no members indicated that they are interested in addressing you on this matter. so it's before you for agency. >> each we have a motion on this to support? >> so moved. >> second. >> any discussion? all those in favor, say aye? >> aye. >> item 14 authorizing the director to enact a small business enterprise bonding and financial assistance program on federally-assisted contracts including establishing a surety bond reserve fund and obtaining a letter of credit or alternate collateral for small business enterprises on the federally-assisted contract grams i'm virginia harmon and i manage the small busi
is on the tax and treasurer's form, so i am in conversation with them to also include our departments as a resource as well. so, hopefully that will take place. so just wanted to let you know. so as director mccarthy or commissioner mccarthy mentioned there is this dollar collected and we roughly have about 80,000 businesses registered in the city. and so, 70 percent of that of the dollar is to stay in the local municipality, 65, 5 percent goes to the administration of handling the funds. and then 65 percent is to go towards past inspections and helping businesses do their construction related activities. the requirements and any kind of education and out reach. so i think that it is written pretty broadly, so i think to allow municipalities to sort of develop their own means of how they wanted to administrator the funding. and so, we will be working on that with your department together. and so, roughly that is about 52,000 dollars. should every business pay that dollar. the tax and treasury's office did let us know that with some businesses if they are just in automatic mode, they m
in a assessment against their property tax so that they can't and that is if you are already broke, there are, you know, if you are already in bankruptcy, it is difficult to get any more. they can also result in being referred to the city attorney's office. sometimes is that after several years, brings in funding and that essentially offsets the city attorney's work to get to that. i don't think that it is a money maker or set up to be that way. but, it is, you know, part of of our mission, and based on your concern and the board of supervisors concern we are trying to putoer resources into that. >> okay, thank you. >> thank you, deputy director. >> commissioner lee? >> yes. >> i have a question on the over all budget plan. >> and workforce. i was wondering if the budget takes into account any additional employees that are needed when they are mandatory retrofit program starts and if it does not, i am wondering what we are going to do, do we need more employees when that happens. >> the commissioner, we already included a couple of inspectors and clerks into that, because of 5,000 buildings, by th
and whether or not to increase taxes. how will he make these tough choices -- will you make these tough choices? supervisor campos: the budget is the most important policy document that the city can pass. it reflects the priorities of city government. i believe we have to be creative in how we look at the issue of the budget. it is important for me that certain things happen. i think that public safety has to be a priority in the budget, the public safety cannot be compromised to save a few dollars. but i think the public safety goes beyond funding the police department and the fire department, as important as that is. it includes funding violence prevention programs, after- school programs so someone has -- and people have something to do after school, funding our department for recreational opportunities for young people during the summer or after school. if you do not do that, that will have implications on public safety. the safety has to be protected, because if we do not do that, we are creating more problems that will be even more costly in the long run. i think that we have to t
it for property owners to take advantage of the property tax savings. the commission commended the new property owners to their commitment to fully restore the nightingale house. much of the property tax savings will go into the full restoration of the property. the commission did#clunanimoy approve the project and afforded a positive recommendation to the board of supervisors, with a couple of caveats or conditions to continue working with staff on a few minor details of the contract, mainly the phasing of the restoration to make sure that staff has the most updated information about when work will occur, and when staff needs to go out there to review the completion of that work, according to the state mandated requirements of the program. that conclude my presentation. and unless you have any comments. thank you. >> president fong: thank you. commissioner sugaya. >> commissioner sugaya: mr. frye, in terms of the mill's act in general, i know that under supervisor wiener's revisions there is now a yearly kind of process, as i understand it. and the initial deadline for let's say 2013 is may
. the city is not getting any sales tax. we pay sales tax to the city. you are losing. we're geting into more areas. construction. this is common view on 2nd street. 2nd street is under massive construction. and it will be. and if you keep putting the truck in there, we're going to have a nightmare on 2nd street. so i think i would like you to reconsider what you are looking at. also the health problem. we have got a flu epidemic going. you want the people who are serving you food to be properly -- [ inaudible ] >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> can we ask people not to repeat what has been stated by others. thank you. >> i am jeff knoll, i work as an inspector for the san francisco health department. i'm not here representing the city. i am here as a coffee drinker. i am in and out of restaurants regularly, and instead of standing in line at a restaurant, i would rather grab a quick cup of good coffee at expresso subito. >> my name is lynn person and i have lived and worked in san francisco for the last 29 years. i'm a business person in downtown and i guess i'm repeating a littl
of dollars in sales tax, license fees, paraphernalia payroll taxes. the original holy bagel is still in business on 24th street. it's now going on 34 years. gary has only benefited the city of san francisco through community outreach, donations. he has donated food products and money from anywhere from casa delas mad reses to the san francisco unified school district. i believe it's the job of city and county of san francisco to create business and i don't think this is the proper venue to vet what the processes of the department of public works are, which were followed wreckly. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> my name is nigel hall and i remember a small business in marin and i come into the city frequently and invariably i'm in a rush. you don't stop in a store to get a coffee when you are busy rushing from one place to another. and the food trucks and coffee trucks are a great addition to the city. they satisfy a very specific need and it's very different to the market for people who go to a specific location to get coffee or get food. the city is very entrepreneurial
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 93 (some duplicates have been removed)